Saturday, January 10, 2004

San Francisco Giants

Signed P Brett Tomko to a 1-year contract, $1.5 million contract.

Good thing Brian Sabean didn’t waste $1.5 million on one of those evil, child-molesting draft picks when a player the caliber of Tomko can be acquired for the same price. If Sabean’s really having trouble figuring out what to do with the saved draft pick money, I can think of better uses than Brett Tomko, such as hiring someone to dub the entire run of Mama’s Family into Mandarin Chinese.

Most mediocre pitchers are able to sneak above league-average once in a while, but Tomko’s proven devilishly skillful at avoiding that nasty fate since his rookie year, maxing out at an ERA+ of 97 in 1998. Tomko has even proven impervious to ballpark effects, allowing 66 homers in the last 2 years playing at Qualcomm and Busch.

People say that ballplayers are spoiled nowadays, especially the stars. Brian Sabean has decided to change that and has dedicated the 2004 season to making sure Barry Bonds knows what it feels like to be working in a waste treatment plant.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

From the Rangers' point of view this might be about pre-filling the AA and AAA squads to get ready for the great White Flag Call Up of 01. They lose the geezers and bring up the kids at 3b, 2b, 1b and just start the schoolin' now. Anything they get for Andres is better than cutting him straightout both from a PR and financial standpoint.

I really don't see how losing Vanderwal makes the Giants SO bad. With Dunston, Benard, Murray and Rivera there was simply too much mediocre talent in the outfield. As bad a trade as Jiminez for Witasick was, that doesn't mean Witasick is waiver wire material. Check out DIPS and his K ratios. I think the Giants have a good chance of keeping Bonds if they want him, and will undoubtedly pick up a power-hitting outfielder if he signs elsewhere. With Estes to dangle and the money saved on Bonds, the Giants could add a CF and LF/RF. I know Aurilia's season was somewhat of a fluke, but he's gotta be considered the best hitting shortstop in the NL. Kent is near the top at 2B. Snow looked good after coming back late in the season, and is always good for 80 walks. Signing Santiago was obviously stupid, but not as dumb as trading Estalella. If Bonds comes back this is basically the same team that won 90 games last year. Obviously Bonds will regress some, but Hernandez and Rueter will undoubtedly improve. Signing Alou or trading for Giles or Sheff would put the Giants in a similar place as last year even if they lose Bonds. The Giants always seem to overachieve. How many of you wrote off Dunston as an out machine? Yet Dusty turns him into a league average outfielder. Feliz will improve, and the lineup will continue to be above league-average.

Oracle, I agree that from a sufficiencies/shortages perspective, this one doesn't make sense for the Giants. They aren't strong at either RF or 1B (and if they do lose Bonds, LF too, duh), and they already are well stocked in righthanded setup men.

But you aren't accurate in saying "Jay Witasick is pure waiver-wire material." This guy struck out 106 in 79 innings last year, which is not your basic waiver-wire kind of stuff. There was a reason the Yankees were willing to part with Jiminez to get him; their acquisition of him just happened to coincide with the one big slump he had all year (I know this all too well because I had him on my fantasy team). He managed to get it pretty much straightened out by the last few weeks of the season. He can pitch.

I interpret this as pure economics for the Giants. Vander Waal will make $1 million more than Witasick, which is another $1 million they can now dangle in front of Mr. Bonds. They can now also probably part with Tim Worrell, who I suspect makes more than Witasick and doesn't have near the upside.

VanderWal's defense is, to put it charitably, awful. The Yankees are stockpiling bats, but they're going to need to put some gloves with them, otherwise the pitching staff could head south.

The Witasick acquisition gives the Giants some flexibility in the bullpen, which might allow them to clear some salary for Bonds by moving Robb Nen (with Felix Rodriguez closing and Witasick taking FRod's spot).

I think the issue of disagreement here is mainly that you guys seem to like Jay Witasick a lot more than I do. To me, I see a pitcher that has about as much command as Braxton Bragg despite good stuff.

The loss of Vanderwal, while not a killer in itself, is indicative of a franchise that has done nothing to address its weaknesses and, in fact, seems intent on eliminating any upside within their weaknesses. Vanderwal's not a star and he isn't good defensively, but he's one of the very few players on the Giants that could potentially hit even 350/500.

Bonds and Aurilia combined were in the range of *230* runs above replacement offensively last year. Aurilia just dropping to the level of Miguel Tejada loses 60 runs by itself. Even Aurilia staying the same with the lack of Bonds and replacing Bonds with the fictitious league average outfielder that the Giants have loses 100 runs and puts the Giants with the dregs of baseball offensively.

Let's assume that Witasick *does* a pretty good job in middle relief for the Giants. Is the difference between Jay Witasick and Robbie Crabtree worth letting *another* offensive position go unmanned in an offense which needed two MVP caliber performances just to be average?

Right, the Giants are only average because of Bonds and Aurilia and in 2000, because of Bonds and Kent. Replace them with league-average players and the Giants are easily a horrible offense.

Bonds was literally worth 110-120 runs more than the league-average leftfielder this year. Aurilia in the 60-70 range. The 2001 Giants had a *170-190* run head start on the rest of the league and to end up with an offense that was only 40-50 runs above average is truly pitiful. We're not talking a 190 run head start on replacement level either, even though the Giants showed with the rest of their positions that they're unable to find players that can hit above replacement level.

"Right, the Giants are only average because of Bonds and Aurilia and in 2000, because of Bonds and Kent."

How can you call the best offense in the league average?

You're also assuming that the Giants won't pick up a CF or corner outfielder if Bonds leaves, which I think is a poor assumption. Magowan and Sabean have done pretty well with free agents and trades, starting with Bonds in 1993 and Kent a few years later. They are poor at developing talent, but not evaluating (other than Santiago).

Also, wouldn't it be wise to assume that a healthy Snow will improve the 1B rating and Feliz will improve at 3B. As long as they haven't lost Bonds, the Giants should finish with the best NL offense for the third consecutive year. Without him, they will fall to the average team you keep mentioning.

I didn't say they were an average offense; I said the Giants needed two MVP-caliber performances just to be average. Without those performances, they wouldn't have reached average. Either you misunderstood what I wrote or I simply worded it poorly, an exercise I'll leave to someone more capable a writer than I.

Re Spencer getting lots of playing time--there's a lot more righties than lefties out there, so I think we'll end up seeing much more of Vander Wal. At least until the defensive replacement innings come along...

Relaford had a great season, swamping his historical numbers. Alfonzo had a terrible season. Relaford also had the luxury of a half-season of PAs. As the sample size grows, he regresses to his norm. To describe Relaford as the second-best hitter on the Mets last season is hedging heavily. He wasn't likely to be the second best this season, even without Alomar. Relaford isn't a good bet to outhit Ordonez.

This is a great trade for the Mets. They traded waiver wire material for a decent starter. I mean Deivi Cruz and Neifi Perez are as good as Relaford, and they're free.

Cedeno's VORP was above Lawton's. Sure the Mets do need another OF, but I think they *expect* to get one. It wouldn't surprise me if Estes is traded, or Rusch, or Chen, or Trachsel.

Letting Boehringer go is no issue; he's just as inconsequential as the guy they traded for him, Bobby Estalella.

But allowing Rivera to go without a murmur puzzles me. Sure, I think Shinjo at the end of the day is probably preferable as my center fielder, but I'm not so positive about it that I wouldn't like to see a good old Spring Training battle to find out. Rivera's one of those guys who just might, someday, make some team real happy they latched on to him at the right instant. If I'm the team latching on to him at the current moment, I don't want to let go until I have to. I don't see how it was that the Giants had to right now.

I'll take your point that it was a poor choice of words on my part to characterize Estalella as "inconsequential." You're correct that he demonstrated very intriguing power/walk potential, particularly in the first half of 2000.

But on the other hand, in the other 326 atbats of his career, he's come in at .212/.309/.417 (.726 OPS). Baseball Reference identifies the two most similar players to him as Tom Haller and Billy Bryan. At his still young age, Estalella has now been dismissed by two different organizations (deemed less useful than the likes of Chris Brock and Boehringer), and it's not apparent to me that the Yankees have any plans for him. I'm seeing more Billy Bryan than Tom Haller here. It'll be quite a story when this guy wins the MVP.

So, sure, he's not inconsequential, but what exactly is he? Something less than irreplaceable, I would think.

And, Tejada, if I'm "Brian Sabean's lapdog," why is the fundamental point of my post to question the wisdom of the Rivera non-tender?

Now why wouldn't a team with Bonds and Kent not try to dominate their lineup with high on-base guys? You can't pitch around Bonds as much with runners on, and Bonds' production would be even better. I don't get it.

According to Gammons, Rickey has been on the phone to SD and SEA trying to stir up some interest. I agree that SF wouldn't be a bad place for him to add to his list. I'd add BAL as well.

I think a lowball offer to Kenny Lofton might not be a bad idea. He fell off a cliff last year, but if they could get him for nothing and incentives he could turn out better than Benard. And if it's clear that he's got nothing left they can cut him and not be out anything. They're both on the far side of the hill, but at least Kenny has been useful in the recent past and might be line for his Mid-30s Blaze Of Glory Flameout Season (TM).

video game anomalies... In Triple Play 2000, I managed the Cubs to 120-some wins. Lance Johnson led the league with about 180 stolen bases (in about 183 attempts) and I think I had 4 guys hitting over 400. In one game, against poor Eddie Taubansee, every player in the game, all my bench hitters, and even the pitcher stole a base (I think we had 25 steals total in the game).

But more amazing, in one season of Diamond Mind, Damon Buford actually put up an OPS over 950 as a full-time starter. Talk about your random variation.

Sabean gets no credit for the offense. He inherited Bonds and Aurilia. He got lucky with Kent's development into a near HOF-second baseman (which we *all* saw coming). Every other hitter is bunk. He's going to go into the season with Shinjo, Feliz, Santiago, and Snow starting? And he deserves credit? Not when have your lineup can be out hit by Jason Tyner, Aubrey Huff, Toby Hall, and Steve Cox. If you start to have noticeably bigger holes than the D-Rays, you deserve no credit.

The only reason the Giants rank so well in EqA is that Bonds is a monster, their 2B hits like a RF, and their SS hits like a 1B. Sabean has the hard-to-find positions settled, but can't build the rest of the team with average hitters. No credit.

I don't. I think Bonds would have been perfectly willing to go through arbitration, and gotten the keys to the bank (I know, I know, as opposed to what?) and tried it again next year. He had a pretty hard year to attack in the arbitration process. The money is $13M in 2002, $13M in 2003, $16M in 2004, $20M in 2005, $18M in 2006, and a $10M signing bonus.

I think this deal is perfect. Everybody overpays free agents, but I think this contract in this market is about right. Bonds is getting paid less than his value for a few years and then above his value for a few seasons, with a bonus. If the Mets had signed him to this contract, I would have considered it a steal. And the Giants got a bargain.

That would be a 4-year, $72MM contract for arguably the best hitter in baseball. I think the likelihood of him completing the contract is well above 50-50; for the reason Chris just said; conditioning.

Sabean's made plenty of moves that never made sense to me, but I think overall he's a lot closer to the best GMs than he is to the worst.

Sabean doesn't own the Giants; he's an employee of the owner, Peter Magowan. His boss has given him two (mutually incompatible) objectives: (1) field a playoff-contending team every year; no rebulding periods allowed, and (2) operate within the constraints of a mid-tier payroll. Sabean has consistently met both objectives, which I for one didn't expect he'd be able to do. I think this is pretty impressive. He's also making his boss rich(er) -- no wonder he's considered an attractive catch by other organizations.

If indeed the Giants go through the entire 2002 season with no other catchers in their lineup than Santiago, Service, and Edwards Guzman, the position will bring new meaning to the term "weakness." But I really doubt that's what will happen. Sabean will likely come up with some (cost-effective) help from somewhere. And, very likely, come September the Giants will be in the thick of the race.

"... the Giants are going to keep claiming "poor" because Magowan paid for Pac Bell (which at least is a much more legit reason than other teams claim poverty)..."

IMHO, this is a BS reason for the Giants to claim "poor." The Giants are BETTER off financially for owning Pac Bell than they would otherwise be: if they were still renting Candlestick, they'd be paying rent rather than paying a mortgage, and the mortgage is a tax write-off that rent wouldn't be; since they own Pac Bell all the stadium advertising and concessions rentals become their revenue rather than the city's; and since they own Pac Bell it is an asset that continues to grow in value (tried to buy any commerical real estate in China Basin lately?), continuing to grow the owner's equity in addition to the otherwise-growing value of the baseball franchise.

Magowan COULD increase the team's payroll. He chooses not to. It's his money, and his team; he has the right to spend the money and operate his team as he pleases. But he gets no sympathy from me with his tired "the Pac Bell mortgage prevents me" line.

Tom, I think you're right regarding Estalella. The Giants were discreet about exactly what was going on, but it's apparent that they had some discipline issues with him.

It's in regard to things like this that I think sometimes it's easy for us out here to be armchair GMs and convince ourselves that if we were doing their jobs, we wouldn't be making these moves that make no sense on a spreadsheet. But real teams don't play their games on a spreadsheet, and real GMs have to contend with lots of issues that may not be visible to us.

You may well be right regarding the tax implications to the team regarding rent vs. mortgage; I certainly profess no expertise in tax accounting. Nevertheless I remain convinced that ownership of Pac Bell Park is a net positive financial condition for the Giants, to a significant degree.

There's every reason to believe that Baker has significant input into the Giants' roster moves. Baker was the manager before Sabean was the GM, he's a two-time NL Manager of the Year, and Sabean and Magowan know that if Baker isn't happy there'll be plenty of other teams eager to talk with him the next time his contract is up. Baker is one of the Giants' most precious assets. There's no way Sabean makes a roster move without at least Baker's consultation, if not his approval, and I'm sure that if Baker comes to Sabean with a suggestion or a request (as may well have been the case with Estalella), Sabean takes it very seriously.

Of course there are reasons to conclude that this is a suboptimal arrangement to have; if we think Sabean doesn't have much of a grasp of sabermetric basics, try Baker: he bats Dunston LEADOFF a lot of the time, for crying out loud. But I think this is another one of those times in which looking at a team through a narrow stat-focused lens can cause one to miss the larger picture. In the Giants' situation, Baker has complete, total, and legitimate authority. The players know they can't go behind his back or over his head to Sabean, because Sabean and Baker are on the same page. As the Estalella case showed, you try and defy Dusty's authority, the next thing you know you're in the International League.

This can only serve to foster an atmosphere in which every player who is on the roster is focused on doing the best he can. I think someone else made this point in another one of these threads: Sabean makes goofy acquisitions, but the players on the Giants' roster very rarely underperform, and there are many examples of players performing better than ever expected: Kent and Aurilia obviously, but also the likes of John Johnstone, Marvin Benard (at least for a couple of years), Felix Rodriguez, Ramon Martinez, Ellis Burks, and Armando Rios. And Bonds seems to be making an annual event of outperforming even high expectations.

None of this is to say, of course, that the team wouldn't be better off if Sabean and Baker had a bit of a clue regarding such subversive concepts as OPS. But I think it points to the fact that there just might be some factors influencing team success that a guy like Sabean might have a pretty good handle on.

Gardner is a guy who squeezed a very creditable major league career out of very unremarkable natural tools. And he displayed a great amount of depth, poise, and maturity over the past few years, as he dealt with the life-threatening illness of his wife.

Slow news day!? Inky went 2-for-2 today! San Diego had better sign-and-trade him to Montreal right quick....

Now that would be amusing. Isn't he the reason drafted players can't be traded within a calendar year of their being drafted? If memory serves, Incaviglia refused to report to the Expos when they drafted him out of college way back when, forcing them to trade him to Texas for Bob Sebra.

Geoff, I'm pretty sure you're right that Inky was the reason for that change; a return to Montreal should nicely cap his comeback.

The KNBR update guy called Kent's injury a "freak accident" and reported that Kent didn't think too much of it when it happened. Overnight swelling changed that opinion.

Off-hand the Giants should be covered defensively, putting Martinez in as the everyday 2B and letting Bell get a clean shot at 3B. ESPN.com seems to think Bell will move to 2B, but I don't see that happening.

"Awesome. I've never gotten such good service at a car wash anywhere in the USA. Must be the Florida Work Ethic."

I take my cars to a car wash that provides exactly this kind of service, in Santa Clara, California. $8.95 including vacuum, wash & wax, all windows washed inside and out, wheel-brite on the wheels, and armor-all on the tires. I always give them a tip because they work so hard and so well. It's a terrific bargain.

If the season doesn't start soon, we may start arguing over who is the all-time greatest dry cleaner ...

This weekend I'm heading down to Arizona for a week, where among other things I'll take in several Cactus League games. It'll be my third straight year going down there, and it really is a blast. "Seeing the game in a more humble setting tends to make one appreciate it even more." Absolutely true.

Once, at a car wash, I had to take special care not to wash the mud off of my license plate. Why? I had forgotten to renew my car's registration and when I sent in the payment a few days before the deadline, I realized that the sticker wouldn't get there in time, so I made a bunch of natural-looking mud splatters on my back bumper, one of them conveniently concealing my year sticker.

Why didn't I wait to go to the car wash until I got my new sticker? A friend of mine threw up on my car, that's why.

The Giants had to decide between Damon Minor (coming off the DL today) and Murray, who are both out of options. And there was no way to move Benard and his salary. According to Sabean, they wanted the lefthanded pop off the bench. He said it was one of the hardest decisions he ever had to make, and did his best to send Murray to his home state of Texas. But if Bonds' hammy really goes, they're in trouble...I mean, trouble spelled T-O-M G-O-O-D-W-I-N, who will be recalled...

Something about that phrase just strikes me funny. Does that mean I've never really bought anything, I've just "traded" cash for goods? I mean, I guess technically that's true, but what's so bad about saying the Giants "sold" Murray to the Rangers?

Dunston in 1986 was the greatest warning track power lead off hitter the world had ever seen. The man loved to fly out to the warning track. I remember when the movie Major League first came out. I thought for sure Dunston was going to take the moviemakers to court for stealing his likeness.

I'm sure I'm plagiarizing somebody here. Shawon was the perpetual toolsy rookie. As David Smyth and Pat Hobby said, when he came up, he was capable of of making fantastic plays. He would also use his rocket launcher arm when he had no chance of making a play, often resulting in throwing errors. I thought, "Well, he'll learn when to stick the ball in his pocket as he grows into his job..." He never did. He swung at pitches way off the plate and way over his chin when he was young. I thought, "Well, he'll learn plate discipline as he grows into his job..." He never did.

Well I was glad to see it because on Sunday he had Reggie Sanders leading off, and as the owner of Sanders in my fantasy league I did not want him to become the leadoff man versus batting behind the human .OBP. Dunston, Sanders leading off , man that's reachin'. He might try Benito next.

This move turned out to be the prelude to a big shakeup in the SD pitching staff. Fikac and Tankersley get demoted to AA, pitchers J.J. Trujillo and Oliver Perez get recalled from AA, and 1B Kevin Barker comes up from AAA.

I dunno, I think we can chalk this up as a winner for Williams. He got a few good months out of Lofton at a cheap price, giving Borchardt more time to develop. Now he flips Lofton for something resembling a prospect. And he sidestepped the media's rush to sign Lofton to a long-term contract after his hot start.

This is exactly what you do with a player like Lofton. Sign him cheap, if he can have a decent year you may be able to get a couple of spare parts for him. Diaz might wind up as a back of the rotation guy at best, something the Sox have plenty of already, but at least this trade looks OK.

I was referring to the decision to sign Lofton, not the decision to trade him. Rowand hit well in the minors last year, and had a decent cup of coffee. Instead of a shot at a regular job, he got another year at AAA, leavened by a few sporadic pinch-hitting opportunities with the big club. His part-time stats this year are ugly enough that he might not get a clean shot at a starting job, which would be a damn shame.

Even if the trade's a victory for Rowand, it might turn out to be a pyrrhic one.

I object! Ruben Rivera has more walks and better longball potential, making him a much better bench bat than Shinjo, once you get past the whole sticky fingers thing. Marquis Grissom might be a better comp...